Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Blair Impede Brexit Project: Ladbrokes makes it odds-on th
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Blair Impede Brexit Project: Ladbrokes makes it odds-on that UK will still be “fully paid-up” member of the EU on Jan 1 2020
@MSmithsonPB pic.twitter.com/DBtOt3sQHk
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
(b) If it is, what's the probability of an extension to Britain's membership of the EU being agreed during the Article 50 period?
I'd say the odds on these two are roughly (a) 25% and (b) 40%. That makes the odds of Britain still being in the EU on 1 January 2020 close to the 10/11 offered by Ladbrokes.
Insert your own percentages according to taste.
Mind you, when FR votes for LePen and leaving, there then won't be an EU for us to leave.
Indeed, the only place where there was a tick up in the second round for the FN was in the Pas de Calais Regional election where Marine Le Pen went from 40.6% to 42.2% - just a 1.6% bump.
ISIS will do their best to make sure LePen wins and thereby cause more mayhem in Europe.
I'm green on this, unless Juppe returns from the dead, and judging by the reviews of the debate last night that's not happening. A Macron win would be a big pay day, but I am stealing myself for LePen.
The EU is on very borrowed time, sad to say.
1 Accept terms as negotiated.
2 WTO (hard Brexit).
3 Negotiate to stay in.
This would allow headbangers on both sides to vent. It would also give the greatest chance of the measure being passed (ie, govt terms finish in top 2, win on transfers). It would also show there is no majority for staying in, or for fantasy total isolation from EU, thus diminishing charges of "betrayal", by establishing a new will of the people. It would settle the issue and allow sensible Leavers and Remainers to unite, isolate the nutters and deal with some of the genuine problems we have.
Long way from here to there though.
What I'd like to do is a sell at 42.5% of the Second Round vote (i.e. a 15% victory for her opponent), and I'd like to get about GBP1,000 a percent, divided up by as many people who are comfortable playing.
I reckon my 42.5% is probably generous compared to what's implied in the current 4.0 odds, and offers good upside to anyone who even thinks it's going to be close.
Anyone want to take me up?
Oh dear....
If Le Pen wins it will be through left wing voters failing to support Fillon (i'm not sure how many would actively vote for her and how many would just abstain). I think Le Pen has a good chance against Fillon. If she can paint him as basically 'as bad' as her on Islam etc, while being 'thatcherite' on economics, what left wing voter is going to turn out to help Fillon? The difference with the presidential is that it's not generic FN vs other candidate. People will compare the two individuals more than the two parties (incidentally this is why I think if she did win the presidential the FN would still fail to do very well in the parliamentary elections soon after).
That said, I think your 42.5% is probably well-pitched given the range of potential candidates in the second round and the scope for 'events' to intercede.
Marine Le Pen will get around 30% in the first round, or maybe a little less given that the FN tends to underperform relative to its poll scores.
Here's the thing, Fillon doesn't need to rely on getting any of the Socialist or Left Front voters (even though those people voted LR/UMP in run offs in 2015), the Macron and Bayrou voters alone will send him well above Le Pen.
UK: We want to leave
EU: OK, leave
UK: Eerrr can we stay instead
EU: No
Then what?
(As an aside, the polling for the Republicans primary ought to go down as another shocker).
I'm off to watch Netflix instead. Have fun bickering.
Major- the tyranny of the majority. Good old John...I love it....
It just occurred to me also that if it hadn't been for Bloody Mary, we wouldn't have any argument over where the put the border.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/fake-news-and-post-truth-the-handmaidens-of-western-relativism/19035#.WDhD9p-nxTd
"Then came the paternalistic solutions. We need new ‘gatekeepers’, columnists claim: professionals who have the resources and brains to work out what’s true and what’s a lie and ensure that people see more of the former. Obama and others suggest Facebook must get better at curating news, sorting truth from falsehood on behalf of its suggestible users. The suggestion is that the internet, having thrown open the world of reportage and commentary to everyone, having enabled anyone with a computer or phone to say their piece, has disoriented truth and democracy and now must be tamed, or at least better managed.
This echoes the elite fears that greeted the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. Then, the religious authorities – the gatekeepers of their day – worried that all sorts of heresy might now find its way into the public’s minds and hearts, unfiltered by their wise, godly counsel. Today’s aspiring gatekeepers panic that fake news will get into and warp the minds of the little people in this era when knowledge filtering has been stripped back even further, so that increasingly the citizen stands alone before the claims and counter-claims of those who publish. And apparently this fake news often contains heresies of its own. In his interview with the New Yorker, Obama strikingly bemoaned the ‘fake news’ of climate-change scepticism, where ‘an explanation of climate change from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist looks exactly the same on your Facebook page as the denial of climate change by somebody on the Koch brothers’ payroll’...
And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was *potentially* illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.
Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert so I'm qualified to judge, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.
That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.
you seem to have misunderstood me.
I'm simply saying that if people receive a windfall (ignoring the demographic factors that @SouthamObserver rightly pointed out) then they are more likely to move in search of a better life as wealth may unlock opportunities that weren't previously available.
I don't believe depopulation of villages and continued urbanisation is in the best interest of existing rural communities.
Drawing a distinction between the best interests of a community and the best interests of the individuals that comprise it is not sneering or snobbery.
(Although it does run counter to the views of your heroine when she said (I paraphrase from memory) "there is no such thing as society. There are just the individuals who comprise it".)
You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.
I made the point about nukes on asteroids on here a couple of weeks ago.
In a Democracy campaigning to change minds isn't traitorous it's the essence of democracy.
@MaxPB is clearly very clever so his repeated falsehoods about our Rebate and how the Commission President is appointment seems to be lies rather than errors. Perhaps his desire to label political opponents Traitors is part of this pathology.
Or it may simply be that like so many Brexiters he is rattled. After the Brexit Devaluation, the Sovereign Rating downgrade, the emergency money printing and interest cut, the abandonment of the deficit target , the growth downgrades, the secret comfort letter to Nissan and the OBR and IFS assessments all does not look well. The polls show an essential standstill. The direct costs of Brexit to HMG have already hit £500m.
In my view one of ths is enough - yet - to stop Brexit. But the policy vacuum, the Briefing from our negotiating opponents, the perceptible sense of drift...
I am understand exactly why some Brexiters think this could slip from their fingers. But the response to that is to address what's going wrong and face up to how Leave won whch is what the results legitimacy rests on.
Handing out verbal abuse will get you no where. Tick Tock.
Like I said earlier MaxPB is Donald Trump (or at least has bought his book ;-))
Get use to it,we are leaving.
Basingstoke Tadley South Con hold 13% swing Con to LD
Con 456
LD 342
Lab 88
UKIP 41
Vote share for all November by elections with change from last time fought
Con 37.9% plus 4.9%
Lab 26.2% plus 0.6%
LDem 17.6% plus 5.1%
UKIP 4.5% minus 5.6%
Green 3.3% minus 4.7%
Nats 9.0% plus 2.4%
Others 1.6% minus 2.7%
It could work but I'm not sure what problem this second referendum would be solving. Presumably we are hoping for "(1) negotiated terms" that are better than both (3) continued membership of the EU and the (2) no deal default.
If we decide that the (1) negotiated terms are worse than (3) EU membership, the first referendum is moot and it would be simpler to run the question again, "Do you wish to remain in the EU?".
If we decide the (1) negotiated terms are even worse than (2) no deal, but still better than (3) EU membership, option (2), becomes option (1), our preferred exit choice.
The mess if there is one is the one the EU is in. Once one nation tells the EU to F OFF, others might well follow..
On the rebate, I was mistaken. Hands up.
Orbital transfer of very massive bodies from the outer solar system can be accomplished using nuclear thermal rocket engines using the asteroid's volatile material as propellant. Using major planets for gravity assists, the rocket DV required to move an outer solar system asteroid onto a collision trajectory with Mars can be as little as 300 m/s. If the asteroid is made of NH3, specific impulses of about 400 s can be attained, and as little as 10% of the asteroid will be required for propellant. Four 5000 MWt NTR engines would require a 10 year burn time to push a 10 billion tonne asteroid through a DV of 300 m/s. About 4 such objects would be sufficient to greenhouse Mars.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm